The central legal point established in the judgment is that owners of property abutting a public highway have the right of access to the public road, and the Municipality has a duty to maintain the public street as a public street.

1. Whether the plaintiffs as owners of property abutting the public highway have the right of ingress and egress to and from the public street and if so whether they can maintain an actionable claim,against the municipality, if their right is obstructed by the appellant/Municipality, is the issue arising in the second appeals.

2. These appeals / S.A.Nos.678 and 703of 2004 have been filed by Tiruvarur Municipality / appellant / respondent / defendant, challenging the judgments and decrees, dated 21.11.2003 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur, in allowing A.S.No.18 of 2002 and A.S.No.17 of 2002, respectively, thereby reversing the judgments and decrees, dated 26.11.2001 of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur, in O.S.Nos.119 of 2000 and 120 of 2000.

3. In O.S.No.119 of 2000, AKM Towers Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, who in turn is represented by his power agent, is the plaintiff. In O.S.No.120 of 2000, one Sivakumar is the plaintiff.

4. O.S.Nos.119 and 120 of 2000 have been filed seeking direction to the defendant / Municipality to remove the fence / compound put up by the Municipality in the road margin lying in between Panagal road and the plaintiffs' house-sites and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' right of access to the road margin.

5. Suit in O.S.No.119 of 2000 has been dismissed on the ground that, (i) Alternative path is available to reach the public road from the plaintiff's property and (ii) The claim of the plaintiff is contradictory between the pleadings and evidence i.e., claiming right to reach the public road as a matter of right in the pleadings and by way of easementary right in the evidence.

6. Suit in O.S.No.120 of 2000 has been dismissed on the finding that, (i) The claim of easementary right is not proved and (ii) The alternative path is available to reach the public road from the plaintiff's property.

7. In A.S.No.18 of 2002 , the finding is that the construction put up by the Municipality would prevent the right of access to the plaintiff to reach the public road from his property and that there is no alternative path available for the plaintiff to reach the public road and on these findings, the dismissal of the suit by the trial court is set-aside.

8. In A.S.No.17 of 2002 the finding is that as per Municipality records the panagal road is the public road and the plaintiff has no other access to reach the public road and that there is no alternative way available for the plaintiff to reach the public road and on these findings, the dismissal of the suit by the trial court is set-aside.

9. Even though separate appeals have been filed challenging the decrees and judgments passed in A.S.Nos.18 and 17 of 2002, as the substantial questions of law raised are common in both the cases, common judgment is being pronounced.

10. The substantial questions of law is re-formulated:-

(i) If the public road is up to the boundary of the plaintiffs' land, whether the plaintiffs have got right of access to the public road from each and every point of their respective land? Whether the plaintiffs are expected to prove continued usage for long time or easementary right to claim,in order to succeed in establishing right of access to the public road?

(ii) If so, whether the Municipality has been empowered under the District Municipalities Act to deprive the owners of the property (abutting on a public street or public road) of their right of ingress and egress to the public street?

(iii) If not, whether the plaintiffs as owners of property abutting the public highway having right of ingress and egress can maintain an actionable claim if their right is obstructed by the Municipality, the appellant?

11. Certain fundamental facts are to be referred to appreciate the substantial questions of law raised.

Each of the plaintiffs own property which lies adjoining the public street. This is a case where the Municipality approved the plan